By Tim Nicholls / @tim_nicholls
Overstating the size of the task, perhaps? I’m not so sure. The world is far from environmental consensus, opposing domestic and international interests make sure of that. Recent attacks on the science behind climate change have dented public support. And several among our world’s leaders are shamelessly playing the expectations games.
Not so Ed Miliband. He remains insistent and optimistic that there will, and must, be a binding global climate deal that comes out of a process that is begun in Copenhagen, if it cannot be achieved at the summit itself.
Even the Obama camp, the beacon of progress that we on the left deeply respect, has been downplaying the chances of success in ways that smell suspiciously of playing politics with the issue. He has been both sceptical and optimistic over the last fortnight. His domestic plans, whilst welcome, work from greenhouse gas levels from 2005. This is over a decade later than the Kyoto regime and means that the US domestic benchmark is proportionately much higher than Kyoto partners.
The ‘will they, won’t they’ over whether heads of governments would attend in person has done even more to create and fan uncertainty and mixed expectations. Over the last few days, things seem to have become more optimistic again, but as we get closer to the summit another plunge into scepticism could throw the talks into disarray.
The negotiations in Bali aired out some particularly tricky differences of opinion, reducing one negotiator to tears at one point. But this negotiating round has to be more balanced. This is where the UK and Ed Miliband need to step in.
Although snipes are directed at him domestically, accusing him of naivety and, for lack of a better phrase, geekishness, on the international plane Miliband is respected. The same is true of the UK, partially thanks to John Prescott’s work at Kyoto: the legacy of environmental progress is most certainly Labour’s to own. When we passed the Climate Change Act, I was in Canada studying international environmental regimes. The left, across North America (yet to be swept up in Obama-mania) went crazy: especially when contrasted with Canada’s announcement that it would simply stop trying to reach its Kyoto goals, the UK became the world’s leader on climate change action.
The Government now needs to harness this reputation and use it to global advantage in Copenhagen. This round of negotiations is going to have to view climate change through a wider lens, including international development (as Douglas Alexander argued) and trade (as I have previously argued).
This requires someone with a comprehensive appreciation of the issues, and it is quite clear from his many speeches that Miliband has this. His challenge now is to use this vision and his reputation to get the rest of the world on board.
There is a lot working in the world’s favour to reach a deal: new environmentally conscious leaders in the US and Australia (though we are left with Harper in Canada); the public recognition of the risks of doing nothing as our weather becomes more aggressive; and oil prices have spiked, giving us a hint of the economic pain that depleted stocks will cause in the future. The UK has been consistent in its approach and its (and Ed’s) role will be pivotal.
Am I, myself, guilty of playing the expectations game here? Maybe. I’m raising the bar: it’s up to the Government to clear it.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
He is what some on here like to call a denier, I personally think it proves he has a brain as he is not willing to accept the status quo, thank God we have at least one person willing to stand up for us and not willing to accept billions of debt to delay the problem for 6 years.
I now await the backlash....
At least we can agree on the objective.
Hmmm, maybe we will have to agree to disagree. I can't deny that it would have been nice to have started earlier (I think that's pretty much always the case with anything). The trouble is that if people become sceptical now, it's sealing our fates and it's not a fate that I'd look forward to.
It's important that we don't just write a blank cheque to the developing world, but that the money we put aside actually goes to building their capacity to deal with climate change. This would be to our benefit too as the costs of developing countries going under due to climate change will hit us all very hard.
Good answer, however I'm not convinced. Just have to agree to differ.
'Green industry is obviously somewhere that we can create a vast number of jobs:'
Be nice if we'd started after Kyoto. Can you not see why people might now be sceptical of this aspiration?
Apparently Sarkozy/Brown are going to promise ten billion Euros support for helping the developing world with this. I imagine the French contribution will be tied to buying French products/know how and therefore subsidise their industry. We on the other hand, haven't got an industry to subsidise, because the 100million promised earlier this year by the government is barely more than 1% of the joint total we plan to give to other people to do this instead.
We have to stop simply writing out cheques to the developing world, and start putting strings on these things that provide mutual benefit. Such as kick starting the green industries that are hoped for, but assumed will somehow magically appear out of the ether.
I don't deny that there is more, much more, to be done. Carbon capture: you're right, nothing's built yet, but they're on the way. Offshore wind farms are up and running. Onshore windfarms are progressing, but many are being held up at the Council stage (especially by Tory ones). Nuclear power, it was announced only last week, is now being properly pursued (but I think it is right to take your time with this, as it is still a very contentious energy source). Undoubtedly we need to do more, on every level (and it will take changes in our habits too), but I think we're on the right course and I know that a Tory gov't would not be so progressive.
On the point about carbon sinks, I don't agree. In fact, I'm not aware that the US was a particularly big beneficiary (and certainly wasn't once it failed to ratify). You could only offset forests against emissions for new forests: this requires action. It's not, to my knowledge, possible for carbon sinks to be a free ride.
The US demanded, and received, the ability to use technology transfer instead. This sees knowledge and resources transferred to developing economies, where it is deseperately needed. Of course, again, the US couldn't actually use this, as they were not part of Kyoto, but other countries have.
Global population growth could be a particularly troublesome factor. Some projections have the world's population hitting 9 bn in a few decades. This will undoubtedly increase demand, reduce stocks and speed up the energy-consumption crisis. I think that's why we have to act now, to get things on track early on so that the higher population does not increase environmental degradation. Increased agriculture will be a problem, emissions wise, with an increased population. However, the best way to decrease birth rates (undeniably the cause of rising global population is births) is by making people richer. It is statistically accepted in most of the international development world that people who are better off have fewer children. Therefore, Douglas ALexander was right: we have to view climate change through the lens of international development too.
I think the understanding of the issues is most definitely there and I believe there is the determination, especially from Ed Miliband. And I hope that the promises of jobs in green industry/manufacturing come good. One thing I do know: there's a much bigger chance of them amounting to something under Labour. We believe in full employment, that is always a goal. Green industry is obviously somewhere that we can create a vast number of jobs: its a no-brainer to me. But I would never trust the Tories, the party that thinks that 'unemployment is the price we pay for low inflation', to put any of these massive policies into action; it simply doesn't gain them anything.
I don't understand your point out Miliband's 'clumsy attempt' with statistics. The regime is based on 1990 levels, which were lower than those in 1997, you are right. But because the 1990 levels were lower, that means that a reduction of GHG levels in the atmosphere are BIGGER commitments than if we used 1997 levels.
This pernicious foolishness will also end up - like eugenics - in the dustbin of history.
Shame we have to pay for it in the meanwhile...
We have not met any of our agreements and we have not invested in technology in the manner that we should have at all.
This is under both governments and the reality is how can anyone truly say they understand economics or in fact claim to the interests of our children at heat for the long term when any kind of economic potency this has displayed historically has depended on technology?
There was and is and will always be the need for greater technology to sell to the world. The fact this has been neglected once more highlights the inadequate understanding of the establishment who just intend to maintain the status quo.
But then the establish are exactly what it says on the tine. We need creativity, not conformity, we invention supported by shrewd investment, we intelligence not clumsy legal manipulators, we need to open the door for the talent that is currently quoshed by banks with little understanding and Governbments with even less.
From what I have gathered the unelites are fairly terrified of scientists and for good reason. It is difficult in the main to pull the wool over the eyes of a scientist with GCSE level statistics to back argument.
I will remind everyone of the MIlliband statistic where he highlights a reduction of CO2 from 1990 or thereabouts, not of course from 1997 when emissions incresed. A clumsy attempt indeed that most people can see through.
The investment in this area is far more critical than any other and if explained correctly to the public would be the perfect weapon politically speaking to reassure and encourage people that the future will be brighter.
The lame-brains in Parliament are limited to narrow view word and phrase manipulation, they are so crap they rely on PR companies (I just wrote an article for a PR company (for free, they now want a finger but as they get paid I have given them the finger) employed because their "work" was so terrible and would have done our cause more harm than good).
We are still in recession, people are clearly not as confident as suggested by some in the media, the establishment and bank corruption has added to this along with the fact no politician in Parliament can grasp the obvious.
Our MP's are low grade, zero vision fools whose obssession for getting a "career" and "money" out of politics and giving back nothing but spin in return is hurting the country has a whole and I have yet to hear any party at all suggest a solution to the problems we face and take this country and people forward to the Premier position it deserves to be in.
Nice to have a sensible and civilised discussion with someone.
You've not said it so I will. If we have shown any leadershiop, it has been purely at a moral level.
Howevr. whilst we've been giving the city free reign, at the same time we've been tying up manufacturing in red tape, we wouldn't have dreamed imposing on the financial sector, so in a whole decade we have damaged our own ability to benefit from the climate deals the government negotiated, instead of building up a new technology industry. So a significant green job dividend simply hasn't materialised. We just don't make the bits needed. Not exactly evidence of joined up government
Regarding your points. Carbon sinks at Kyoto existed as far as I can see as an excuse for the USA to do nothing. Evidence suggests that forest fire effects will be more severe and frequent, which rather negates them as a solution. I think the main advisor to president Obama recommended painting all house roofs white as the most effective action to reduce the effects of global warming. The physics behind that are really straightforward. Simple and low cost, but probably not worthy of backslapping after a 17 course banquet.
We had a fantstic opportunity to take a lead in a form of green energy generation technology after Kyoto and did nothing long lasting except pay foreign companies to provide us with their know how and equipment.
Carbon capture. Not a single installation in place yet. Not technically difficult, just not cheap.
Tidal/Wave energy. Just be thankful the national press didn't make an issue of the debacle off Southwold in September.
Yet we have a real opportunity to take a lead in this still. But strangely not anywhere near the top of Ed's agenda.
Then we have the real elephant in the room, nay, bloody great blue whale. Population growth. Strangely enough people are reluctant to discuss that. Could it be because that would require really really difficult decisions to be taken?
Nuclear power. Tony was pushing this. How long has Gordon been Prime Minister before making a decision. Not surprising the government has been accused of differing, especially as they are now making such a big deal of making decisions at Copenhagen.
In summary I'm not convinced of the governments determination, basic understanding, or desire to create jobs in the required technologies.
I wish it wasn't so.
We had Kyoto which set a target for 2010 and we're not going to meet it. What is the point of a target if you dont meet it? Then what's the point of setting more targets when we didn't meet the first one? Its all rhetoric, I don't care about the headline soundbite.
We've had Kyoto and nations have been "piggy-backing" on others cuts. If we are to use targets I would say they need to be far more focused. There should be a target of say 30% energy generation through nuclear power within 10 years. Then there would be a timetable for when these plants will be built, all this publicly disclosed.
Just saying we'll cut emissions by 50% or 60% or whatever by 2050 is just not good enough. We've had these targets before and NEVER met them, its ridiculous that you think these targets mean anything at all. Give me a timetable of achievable actions, using todays technology. Then I may believe it.
Your cynicism about global action "It's nice to think that everyone will simply do what is right and get it spot on, but the world rarely works out that way" is exactly why we shouldn't have targets. They disappear from view a month after they're announced and get no reporting when their not met. Its the easy option for reluctant Governments. The truth is the only reason we have targets is because Governments dont want to actually do anything meaningful on a global scale. Targets are cop-outs.
Sorry, I didn't finish dealing with the issues in your post. On the carbon trading point, I agree that it is not the 'be all and end all' of the climate change argument. Nor should it be. Nor is it.
Kyoto, as well as setting up carbon trading, also employs technology transfer, knowledge sharing and carbon sinks (i.e. forests). As I said in my other post on climate change, it is vital to get these strenghtened in the new one, and to incorporate other regimes, such as trade and international development, into the mix.
But we are pushing ahead with offshore wind technology (and I do believe it was a mistake to let the manufacturing leave the Isle of Wight) and with carbon capture and with nuclear. I don't see that we're sitting back and doing nothing.
Totally agree about working for the greater good, but I simply don't accept the UK is at the forefront.
China, Norway, and Denmark have invested in the technologies needed to give them leadership. We have not.
For instance we have no wind turbine manufacturing capability. Vestas shut our only wind turbine factory. They are Danish.
The majority of UK consultancy business into hydrid and electric powertrains is with Chinese companies.
They make a large proportion of the worlds PV solar cells.
Norway has invested in a green oil free energy future.
As I said. How do you then decide the UK is leading?
Our investment into green technologies has been too little, too late. It needs some focussed attention from the government. There's so much that could actually be done and seen to be done at the level of improving the energy efficiency of the whole housing stock, and by using building regs more imaginatively than they are now to shape future construction to support currently forseeable technologies.
Then there's the use of our greatest potential energy source, the sea. The current electricity distribution rules actually penalise the use of green energy from the most suitable locations be it wind, wave, or tidal, i.e. west coast of Scotland. (The distribution arrangements are known as BETTA, if you want to check. The bit on the off shopre generation capacity by 2012 is particularly amusing given implementation 'starts' in 2009. There's not much 2009 left.)
I don't say it's deliberate, I just say the people making the decisions appear not to have a clue.
I do remember Kyoto, and the many hours I have spent pooring over its contents and commitments.
I think its important we do not exclusively focus on oil in negotiations too. Kyoto is about setting a ceiling for emissions, for carbon, NOx gases and methane. It's not just about oil, but all energy forms. And that is why we DO need China on board: their development is fuelled by coal which is incredibly dirty. The UK is embarking on carbon capture, which I think is the right way foreward as an interim measure. It is probable that oil will run out (or become scarce so as to drive up the price too far for most people) before alternative energy solutions are well-enough established to take up the slack. Coal might have to be used during this time... it is better that the process is clean. A few weeks ago the gov't pushed this forward. The same with nuclear energy.
We do need to free up funds for micro generation and locally driven schemes. But that is not to say that the gov't shouldn't have done what it has done and shouldn't be going into Copenhagen fighting for targets. The truth is that the world is a very different place from when Kyoto was being ratified: I remaing hopeful, but it's still going to be a hard slog in the negotiations.
@Thomas Snoxell
"Why do we need a target to do something?" It's nice to think that everyone will simply do what is right and get it spot on, but the world rarely works out that way. Without targets across the international arena, there will be incentives to drag your heels, free-ride on other people's cuts, and then there is no agreement about exactly how far you need to go. What was so remarkable about the contruction of Kyoto was how it applied individual rations to every state, taking their development into account. It was comprehensive and it was definite. We need to build on this in the new one, make it better and much more robust.
If you won't believe what Miliband will say, then you're unlikely to listen when he talks about action. But we've already had action on nuclear energy and carbon capture.
Also, this is not the third set of targets, it is the second. The UNFCCC in Rio set a general goal and it was down to Kyoto to implement this. This is the sequel (as Kyoto was only ever for a defined time). It's one long chain. Targets are set, they are reviewed, they are changed. In my mind, that's how you form and successful environmental regime and there is a lot of literature out there that backs me up (Jutta Brunnee would be a good example).
I agree that cooperation and dialogue should be the foundations of the international regime, but I believe that targets have to be there to define the progress you are working towards.
I don't accept your argument that the Government has only recently got involved with climate issues. It was at the fore during the negotiations of Kyoto. I also don't think that it is because it can win votes: sometimes politics is about what is necessary across the country, not just marginals.
Seems like the debate seems to be dividing between those who are scientifically trained and therefore taught to be sceptical of claims without definitive evidence, and those who for want of a better word, 'believe'.
In scientific terms that difference between a proven fact and a theory are quite clear.
The climate is changing. That's a fact. It does so.
Causation? Jury out. Accepted balance of probability is human activity. Balance of probability is not proof.
Before anybody complains too much about this, because the earth's atmosphere is too big. In the future, there's going to be clear layer of strata, widespread, containing a high content of what used to be concrete. We did that.
I actually accept mans activities maybe can cause global warming, because past theories are being matched by today's observations. That still doesn't constitute proof.
What is beyond any doubt is that fossil fuels are in finite supply (exact quantity unknown) and there are therefore reasons to reduce reliance on them because of this. Not to mention the effects of air pollution.
However as Chris Cook has mentioned, carbon trading is missing the point. It's the fossil fuel that contains carbon. Control the consumption of that and you control emissions. The carbon trading scheme for the casino players in the city benefits them and no one else.
The real issue here is a failure of courage of the worlds politicians to implement a scheme that controls the availability of fossil fuel.
Making carbon the basis of currency in trade transactions because of it's inherent value, which therefore encourages people to use less, as advocated by Chris seems logical. (I suspect not easy to implement any time soon though.)
Whether Politicians apply such logic seems debatable given that they keep telling us that man made global warming is a proven fact, when it clearly isn't provable.
Let's face it. Our current crop of politicians seem to find it necessary to sack unpaid scientific advisors for simply stating verifiable facts in a lecture hall. They wouldn't know a verifiable fact if it smacked them in there gobs.
What I've seen so far from Ed seems devoid of facts, but strong on preachiness. I hope the Chinese have a better rep. I think they'll be surprisingly pro- CO2 reduction. They've spent the last few years pretty well mandating research into reduced carbon technologies ready to unleash them on the world hungry for them
We have a lot of catching up to do. I suspect the Chinese are going to clean up because this government has only discovered green issues because they've only recently realised they are the only thing they are doing now where they might win votes.
The Danes had their west coast dotted with wind farms ten years ago. The Norwegians are forging ahead with off shore wind turbine technology, and the UK government has sat on it's bottom doing nothing concrete to push tidal energy, or improve the efficiency of the majority of the UK's housing stock.
If we're the leaders, I'd like to know the criteria this is judged on.
Obviously the language used in the emails doesn't do them any favours, but if you look at it in terms of what they do, there's no meat on the bones of the conspiracy theory.
Also, am I the only one who finds it slightly suspicious that information damaging the credibility of the scientific community has emerged hot on the heels of Alan Johnsons very public spat with a scientist?
Maybe it's me reading too much into that one.... I hope.
As for Global Warming, I do not disagree our Weather patterns are changing, but I believe Nature is responsible.
Obviously pumping C02 into the atmosphere is not wise as we do not know yet, what effect that is having. We should clean up our planet as its the moral thing to do, which means the Politicians will do nothing to truly clean up thier act.
There is a lot of evidence to make a sceptic distrustful of the MMGW theory, surely being sceptical is a good thing? as to challenge is the route to the truth and not the spin of the NWO.
"Elliot, the recent "leak" only shows them manipulating their data to match other data they had already gathered."
The moment a scientist starts doing that, he ceases to be a scientist.
I can very much understand your cynicism towards politicians, but try to remove your personal views of them from your analysis. I've said before its a question of trust but its a question of trust in the science first and foremost. There are many reasons to distrust politicians but most of these have no bearing on the MMGW debate.
Disagree with the status quo if you want to but don't hold a view because of personal anger towards politicians' failed promises. This is why I say targets are meaningless. I don't trust politicians any more than you do so I want to see concrete steps being put into action, not more hot air (the pun is irrestible).
Where I agree with you is in your opinion that the term "denier" is grossly wrong and dangerous. In scientific terms you can never be a "denier". No Scientific theory is ever proved, it only works. The use of it harms the debate and the case of MMGW "believers".
I would have thought that if a respected authority such as the Met Office were to say, "Look, low pressure areas crossing the Atlantic are consistently x per cent more frequent than they used to be and, what's more, we are consistently seeing lower trough pressures. Climate is definitely changing,", then Mr and Mrs J Public wouldn't have much difficulty in understanding it and take it as a statement worthy of respect.
All representations, by definition, contain distortions. Sometimes the distortion is of such significance that the representation becomes false.
Now, I'm definitely not saying that you are deliberately engaging in distortion, but we do have to be careful that our representations are as accurate as we can make them.
"possibly, it's the frequency and intensity of these low-pressure traverses that should be assessed for statistical significance, rather than actual Thames Barrier closures."
Not possibly, but definitely form a science point of view. But the time series analysis of the barrier if it points to increased deep cyclonic activity is a good representation for the general member of the public as it something more "real" for them to grasp.
Our Planet has warmed and cooled for millenia, we cannot do anything about it, its as simple as that.
What annoys me is this is used to push forward the Green Agenda, which I personally have no problem with. What I resent is the people who use the Denier slogan. How dare you attach a connotation connecting the views of the Holocaust. That was fact and happened, Man Made Global Warming is still a theory, fact!
Trying to curb our Goverments to protect our planet and use its resources responsibly is a nobel cause, but a Capitalist system only knows the value of everything and willing to strip the world in the pursuit of profit will ensure nothing changes. All tha twill happen is we will be hit with even more Green Taxes but the raping of the enviroment will continue.
Coca Cola uses 8 pints of water to produce 1 pint of Cola, and in the poorer Countries take the water from local sources and replace it with waste chemicals, but nothing is done.
We have just spent 400million propping up the Car Industry when we had an opportunity to force them to build eco cars, but we didnt, did we?
We are expanding our airports and have made trains to expensive for the majority. Wherever you look the truth is all around us, but like sheep the people bleat about thier Green credentials, hypocrites of the first degree.
Forget the rest of the World, let our Politicians actually clean up our own act before we preech and pay lip service to the Green Lobby, its unedifying and insults our intelligence.
Guy, I did state that the number of closures of four times or more in the two periods (three times as many in the 'second half') could be significant.
From reading the Thames Barrier site, it appears that 'storm surges', due to low pressure areas crossing the Atlantic and tracking south through the North Sea appear to have the greatest effect and, possibly, it's the frequency and intensity of these low-pressure traverses that should be assessed for statistical significance, rather than actual Thames Barrier closures.
"Could have had a very nervous duty controller in at the turn of the century when it was closed 24 and 20 times in two separate years ...."
Yes it could have done because you are including human error, but the base point is the number of times it is have to be raised is showing a steady increase over the decades. This would fit with either or two things:
1 Acceptable risk is decreasing, which seems strange given why it was built and the consequences v cost of raising the barrier
2 Storm event weather causing storm surges in sea levels magnified by the estuary have increased.
I might have a look later tonight into oceanographic and meteorological data for this.
You're probably right, you don't have to concede anything and I shouldn't have put it in those terms. For a long time those inclined to do so would have called me a "denier" (horrible term). The evidence does need further investigation but it is my opinion that the evidence currently available requires us to take this problem seriously and take action.
Remember that action can be taken that has a positive effect on both our CO2 emissions and other areas of policy. By increasing energy efficiency we can lower our emissions and cut the publics bills. We can move to nuclear power and increase our energy security, stop endless outflows of our capital to the middle east and Russia as well as lowering our CO2 emissions. These things we should be looking at rather than wholesale changes while the evidence is under review.
I haven't avoided the CRU leak (see my posts in previous threads) and it is an incredibly worrying development. I am scientist myself (I have a masters in theoretical physics) so I know that any study that is very data intensive can be manipulated. It says a lot that something that is so ingrained in the public's mind can have so little support (41% apparently).
In my view it is a matter of trust, people do not study the evidence to any great extent so its a matter of trust to many. Do we trust scientists and politicians? Do we trust that there are no ulterior motives at work here? Let's examine it. You say there are reasons for politicians to play up the case to increase taxes and introduce another renevue stream for traders and investors. This seems a weak argument IMO. There is a massive cost to the measures being introduced and will be unpopular. Only 41% of people agree with consensus so measures taken will likely damage politicians chances of being re-elected (their main motive). This is why we're seeing foot-dragging in the US. It seems the political difficulty is one of the main reasons we haven't seen greater steps taken.
I think you were right to pull me up on a poor choice of language. It is harmful to the debate when people steadfastly and confrontationally pursue their argument to the detriment of others' point of view. Trying to silence people will only lead to stalemate. You don't have to concede anything, continue to be sceptical if that is your view, but keep an open mind and don't let your view solidify against the evidence.
Just found this on the Thames Barrier site : "The Barrier has no individual trigger level for closure. Hydrological and meteorological data is fed into the control room every 20 minutes by telemetry. The closing regime is guided by a mathematical matrix considering fluvial flow, tide and surge from this data. The end decision for closure lies with the Thames Barrier duty controller at the time."
Could have had a very nervous duty controller in at the turn of the century when it was closed 24 and 20 times in two separate years ....
Thanks for the response.
Just had a quick look at the graph and in the first thirteen years of operation, the barrier was raised four times or more three times ; in the subsequent fourteen years of operation, the barrier was raised four times or more nine times. This could be significant.
However, I would like to know whether raising the barrier is totally controlled by instrumentation ie no human interference, or whether raising the barrier is a 'judgement call' by the operators which, in the end, proved to be unnecessary.
Y'know, and I mean this seriously, people in all walks of life are taking an increasingly "I'm not going to take the chance" attitude these days (apart from financial markets traders, but that's another story ....) and if raising the barrier is a 'judgement call', then it could be 'human interference' and we are not comparing like (the last 14 years) with like (the previous thirteen years).
Just a thought, nothing more .... cold and clinical records are the key.
Sorry i thought it what Mr Brown was giving , Although there was a report on the news the other day that some countrys had not giving all there said the would to a un fund( forgot what one)
ricki
Just seen in the livelist box that Mr Brown is pledging £10 billion to a fund , With all the fraud and missapoint of money from big insatutions (like the EU) ,Is this a wise use of taxpayers money and can/will it be acounted for properly?
ricki
Why do we need a target to do something? We had targets at Rio and Kyoto and neither were met. They're meaningless. There is no rationale in implementing a target with no mention of how we're going to meet it. Its a symptom of our current politics. We have it enshrined in law that we'll half the deficit within 4 years, but we've got no idea how we'll do it or what the situation will be in 4 years.
What happens if global temperature goes down in the next 10 years as it seems to have done in the last 10? Do we then still have to cut our emissions even if scientists change their outlook because its enshrined in law?
I couldn't give two hoots what target is announced (I wont believe Miliband no matter what he says), I want to know what we're going to do, what effect we expect to see and how much its going to cost. Targets are just pieces of paper. Its a sorry indictment on our politics that we need targets to get anything done. If the world is agreed that action is necessary I want to know what the world is going to do, not the total effect it wishes to have. We're wasting time setting targets, the third such target in 30 years.
I want to know when our first new nuclear power plant will be built, I want to know what incentives consumers will receive to change their lifestyles.
I understand that this needs to be coordinated globally but that doesn't require targets, it requires honest dialogue and cooperation. The only targets required IMO are ones from China and the USA, we in Europe already have targets, lets get those done before setting new ones.
Thanks for the reply. We have had plenty of commitments. Remember Kyoto? And yet Labour cut the grant available for micro generation. They have been slow to react to major renewable projects - especially tidal schemes which Brown put funding up for but then made so full of red tape that no one bothered to apply.
And we don't need a commitment from China to make our energy more secure. The days of oil are running out so isn't it in the interests of our government to find alternatives and implement them? Instead we have a government that has ditthered so much our energy supply from 2015 is at serious risk of not responding to demand.
I take your point that the summit is important - although world leaders jetting in is rather ironic (havent they heard of videoconferencing?) however I look at what the government has done for our sustainability and energy security in the last 12 years. The answer is not a lot.
That is precisely the logic that should be applied to events like the flooding this month.
When 1,000 year events become 100 year events etc. then a trend is developing.
Currently there seems to be some evidence that extreme level weather events are increasing in frequency in certain areas.
The best trend to point to as an example of how to analyse events is the amount of times the Thames Barrier is being raised to deal with flood surges. The graph for this shows a steady upwards curve:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/105002.aspx
However within the data you will see the two largest years are just after the millennium. Those two years on their own show nothing other than there were two exceptional years. Within a time series analysis though the picture is of increased usage.
What this means though is then up to an individuals analysis and perception.
As I've said before there is enough evidence around to make this rational, sceptical ex scientist believe climate change is a reality.
"The problem is that domestically we have done sweet FA". Well, I wouldn't describe the Climate Change Act and its definite targets and duties as nothing, but each to his/her own! Furthermore, investment in new technologies and alternative power sources is being driven forwards. On the car manufacturing front, one of our plants is likely to become the site for building enviro-friendly autos.
@john doe
It is actions that count. But actions come from commitments: commitments on a global issue like this come from summits. Micro-generation is a great idea and local solutions (as ANthony Painter wrote this week) are key, but they have to be within a wider, international framework. Greenhouse gases don't respect international borders, so if we simply said 'we will do this' and didn't pressure the rest of the world to do the same, we would get nowhere.
@chris cook
Kyoto is actually an incredibly advanced agreement. Carbon trading got a lot of countries on board that would not otherwise have been. Each country has a specific ration (allowing for increases in some places for economic development in the poorer areas) and yet the result of the figures is still a net reduction in GHGs.
I am also not suggesting that Copenhagen should be Kyoto II... as I said, it should be far wider. But it was the first step along the right path: now we have to make sure that we carry on down the right path and include everything that needs to be. I personally think the UK has the right viewpoint on this, so it's down to our negotiating team to (hopefully) prove me right.
@ricki
I like the phone-conference idea. With all the break out meetings and such, I don't know whether it would be workable, but I definitely think it should be explored!
@Thomas Snoxell
"What we definitely don't need is targets". Really? Because I would say that targets are what motivate policies. We set a goal, then we put in place the policy to reach it. Policy without a goal won't succeed because there isn't a proper focus. Also, I disagree that a net reduction on 1990 levels of CO2 are meaningless.
The government announced only last week that it was pursuing nuclear development, explicitly to meet its TARGETS. Targets forming policy in action.
@ Guy M
I agree with Peter Barnard... isn't it possible that a series of events displays a trend. Increased climatic volatility, I would suggest, is emblematic of a trend.
Guy, I understand your point about one-off isolated events vs long-term trends but wouldn't it be the case that if the frequency of one-off isolated events became statistically significant, then a long-term trend could be said to be in place?
If that's the case, has anyone done a study in this area?
Too late - the zealots have already got us by the short and curlies on this one!
the UK became the world’s leader on climate change action.
Hmmmmmmm......
By all means have a debate and be as sceptical as possible. You have to concede though that at this moment in time the scientific evidence points to MMGW being the reality and the consequences of inaction are dire. We do not have a realistic choice to do nothing.
This doesn't mean we should close the book on MMGW theory. It is far from a proven theory and we must be open enough to say "we went with the evidence and now the evidence says its not the threat we thought" should this come to pass.
@Ricki Lake
The theory behind the 3rd runway is that it will cut the queuing time to land at Heathrow, eliminating the need for planes to circle above the city. This would reduce CO2 emissions assuming no increase in flights - of course there will be an increase but that's the theory. I agree with the conference call idea though, we really should be doing this at every opportunity.
I would have more trust and respect for Mr Millieband and Mr Brown praticed what they preached , Why isint this being conducted by video link ? How much will the carbon footprint be of this confrence ? And how does buliding the 3rd runway at heathrow show that we are leading the world?
ricki
1 Climate change is a reality, though the causes are not agreed (is it man or not, is CO2 of H2O vapour more of a problem etc.)
2 Copenhagen will amount to lots of hot air (bad for the environment), nonsensical targets that no one will keep to and a PR spinning of everything to make it look like our glorious leaders have saved the world.
Humanity as a collective is dumb, action will be taken eventually but by the time some nasty change will be more or less inevitable.
As an aside, every time I see a member of the public i.e. last nights Question Time or an intelligent politician i.e. Diane Abbott on This Week tie in a WEATHER event like the Cumbrian flooding with a CLIMATE change, a little part of the environmental scientist inside me dies.
Seriously just how damn hard is it to distinguish between weather and climate and between one off isolated events and long term trends?
This is what gives climate change a bad name.
We shouldn't be talking targets, we need policies to bring about the change we need. We need nuclear power ASAP. We need a wide range of tax breaks and incentives to encourage people to make changes. The time for talk is over, action needs to be taken.
We need to look at the other side of this too. We may not be able to prevent all the effects of MMGW. We should be looking to fund measures to alleviate the effects of MMGW. We need to bolster flood defenses, build levees, plant more trees to soak up flood water. We mustn't simply look at CO2 reduction.
Note here that I am making no judgement on global warming or the role of CO2 - I'm just saying that the proposed solution of emissions trading etc is complete bollocks brought to us by the same people who brought us the Credit Crunch, also by monetising something entirely worthless.
Germany gets it. Look at the micro generation there. Under Labour we have gone backwards.